Read Kraft & Furlong Chapters 9Chapter 9 Welfare and Social .docx

Read: Kraft & Furlong: Chapters 9
Chapter 9 Welfare and Social Security Policy
Struggling to make ends meet. Kansas City chef Howard Hanna
speaks during an event to introduce the Raise the Wage Act in
the Rayburn Reception Room at the U.S. Capitol on January 16,
2019, in Washington, D.C. Hanna pays the employees in his
restaurants $15 an hour. The proposed legislation, which would
gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2024, is unlikely to
pass in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Poverty
The United States has always had different viewpoints regarding
poverty. The American cultural and social perspective that
encourages individualism and promotes equality of opportunity
leads to a tendency to blame the poor for their own
circumstances. On the other hand, some say there really is
inequality of opportunity that prevents many from increasing
their standard of living. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, the
recent economic recessions and slow recovery, and stories
regarding college students going hungr y highlight persistent
poverty and inequality and often draw America’s attention. This
may be particularly problematic for those considered to be in
extreme or deep poverty. Deep poverty is defined as a
household case income less than half of the federal poverty
amount. Over 6 percent of the population lives under these
conditions.3
There are a number of different ways to examine poverty in the
United States, starting with the official definition. As we noted
in chapter 5, for 2018, the federal government placed a family

of four below the poverty line if its annual income was less than
$25,100 in the forty-eight contiguous states. This rate is
adjusted based on factors such as the number of people in a
family, the composition of a family, and inflation from year to
year. As we stated earlier, in 2017, nearly forty million people
were considered to be impoverished; however, this was down
from forty-six million in 2012.4 Others look at poverty from an
income distribution perspective: the more unequal the
distribution of income, the greater the potential poverty
problem. Still others examine poverty in terms of demographic
characteristics such as race, gender, and age (see Figure 9-1).
As an issue, poverty in the United States came to a head during
the mid-1960s when President Lyndon Johnson declared the
War on Poverty. The government initiated a number of
programs to deal with the problem. Between 1965 and 1973, the
poverty rate fell from 17.3 percent to 11.1 percent, and it
appeared that the nation was winning the war. Unfortunately,
the United States has not achieved a poverty rate this low since
1973. The rate has improved significantly in certain
demographic categories; for example, the elderly and intact
minority families have made definite advances. Single mothers,
children, and poorly educated young people, however, still have
a hard time rising out of poverty.
Some statistics concerning children in poverty help to drive this
point home. In 2007, 18 percent of all children in the United
States were poor, and this percentage increased to 21.8 in 2012,
and decreased to 17.5 percent in 2017. Children make up only
25 percent of the population, but they comprise 33 percent of
the nation’s poor. Moreover, minority populations in the United
States also suffer higher poverty rates than whites,5 which may
indicate something about the weaknesses of government
programs to reduce poverty as well as those aimed at improving
the status of minorities. Figure 9-2 shows the United States’

poverty rate by age over the past fifty years.
Many look at poverty as an income distribution problem. In
other words, a large number of people are living on limited
resources, while a smaller percentage of people earn a large
proportion of the nation’s combined income. Economists often
use the Gini coefficient (see Figure 9-3) as a way of
demonstrating a nation’s income equality and inequality.
Income equality is represented by a forty-five-degree line, on
which each percentage of the population is making the same
percentage of the income. As a curve deviates away from the
forty-five-degree line, it shows an increase in income
inequality. The implicit interpretation of the curve is that if a
few people are making a large percentage of the income, more
people are put at risk of poverty. Based on 2017 data from the
U.S. Census Bureau, the richest 20 percent of the population
makes 51.5 percent of all of the income in the United States,
and the poorest 20 percent makes only 3.5 percent. Another way
to state this is that the top quintile is making more than the
other 80 percent of the population (see Table 9-1). This gap is
even more pronounced when you look at the top 5 percent,
which earns more than 22 percent of all income. Some analysts
and policymakers have begun to look at the poverty problem in
a way they believe will change the debate on the issue.
Although levels of poverty, as defined by the Census Bureau,
have been decreasing, as we noted earlier, in 2010 they reached
the highest level in over fifty years, in part because of the
prolonged economic downturn and high levels of unemployment
or underemployment (working only part-time or for low wages).
a The distribution of income in the United States is even more
unequal than the data in the table suggest. If one examines the
gain in income over the past thirty years of the top 10 percent of
Americans, one discovers that most of the gain went to the top 1
percent of taxpayers, and 60 percent of the gains of the top 1

percent went to the top 0.1 percent. The disparity between the
very rich and the average American has been growing
significantly in recent years. For a commentary about the
erosion of equality in income distribution over the past several
decades, see Paul Krugman, “We Are the 99.9%,” New York
Times, November 24, 2011.
Even before these recent changes, some data can indicate that
the poor increasingly face real challenges. For example, during
the slow economic recovery, the U.S. Conference of Mayors
announced in 2013 that almost all cities reported an increase in
emergency food assistance over the past year. Similar findings
were reported for homelessness.6 While the Census Bureau has
considered revising its definition of poverty, no real changes
occurred until 2011, when the bureau introduced a
supplementary measure of poverty. While the bureau will
continue to use the “official” measure, it will also publish this
supplementary measure that draws upon the recommendations of
the 1995 National Academy of Sciences report.7 In essence, the
new measure takes into account a fuller range of variables
related to both revenue and expenditures. Changing definitions
can dramatically affect poverty statistics, which is probably
why this supplemental measure will not be used to determine
eligibility for programs.
The new measure of poverty also could significantly affect the
political stakes. As an example, based on analyses using some
different definitions of poverty, the income threshold in 2017
would be $27,085, or nearly $2,500 greater than the stated rate.
Thus use of a different definition of poverty could increase the
poverty rate substantially.8 Such changes in the poverty-line
calculations may be necessary because the original poverty line
is based on a number of assumptions made in the mid-1960s that

may no longer be valid. In addition, the poverty level is the
same for the lower forty-eight states and does not take into
consideration what are often substantial cost-of-living
differentials across the country. The supplemental measure
discussed earlier represents the first major effort to reconsider
this measure. It is probably safe to say that even the proposed
increase in the income threshold and the resulting additional
assistance may not be sufficient to cover a family’s expenses —
housing, food, clothing, child and medical care, and everything
else.9
On the other hand, a number of pundits and politicians,
particularly conservatives, have argued that perhaps poverty
may not be what it once was, and that even the poor enjoy a
better quality of life than was the case decades ago. For
example, they say that a large proportion of the population may
not be paying any income taxes at all. Their claim is that
everyone, even the poor, should be helping the nation address
its fiscal challenges, and that they can afford to do so because
they are living with what might be called luxury items in
comparison to how many families lived in the 1960s.10
Another way to examine poverty is from an ideological
perspective, or what some might say are the root causes of
poverty. Is poverty due to broad economic circumstances or to
individual behavior and choices not to work? Liberals and
conservatives have different ideas about why poverty exists and
consequently make different proposals for addressing the
problem. Conservatives see poverty in part as a personal choice;
they believe that little poverty exists in the United States that is
involuntary. Some may also believe in the culture of poverty,
meaning that those brought up in poverty learn how to be poor
and work the current system to their benefit, and that they
choose to remain poor as adults. In addition, conservatives tend
to blame government programs for encouraging people to

remain poor, in part by not requiring any kind of responsibility
in exchange for received benefits. Liberals, on the other hand,
see poverty as a problem brought on by economic and social
conditions over which individuals have little or no control.
Liberals recognize that not everyone has the same opportunity
for quality education or job training, and they favor government
intervention to help equalize the playing field. They believe as
well that the high number of minorities who are poor indicates
that discrimination also contributes to poverty.
As discussed in chapter 6, equity is one of the criteria used to
analyze problems or policies, but the word can have multiple
meanings. In the case of poverty, should the concern be whether
the processes by which people gain an education and jobs, and
thus a certain income, are fair, and thus whether the nation’s
overall distribution of income is fair? Conservatives tend to
think this way about income distribution and poverty. On the
other hand, liberals would ask whether equity means moving
toward a more equal distribution of resources in the nation.
In 2011 and 2012, the Occupy Wall Street and related
movements tended to emphasize the latter perspective. That is,
supporters viewed the current income distribution between the
top 1 percent of the population and the remaining 99 percent as
unfair or inequitable. The strong support for Senator Bernie
Sanders during the Democratic primaries, particularly among
college students, was built in part on the continuing level of
inequality in the U.S. economy. Moreover, analysts pointed to
new studies that showed significant constraints on social
mobility—that is, on the ability of people to rise from the lower
income levels. Recent research indicates that the United States
now provides less mobility of this kind than do comparable

nations. For example, 42 percent of American men raised in the
bottom fifth of the income distribution remain there in
adulthood. This persistent disadvantage is higher than in
Denmark (where it is 25 percent) and Britain (where it is 30
percent).11 Some saw the rise and eventual victory of the
Trump candidacy in 2016 as linked strongly to the perception
and perhaps the reality of economic stagnation and the “left
behind” white working class.12 Even with such data, of course,
liberals and conservatives might disagree about whether
inequality of this kind is acceptable or not. As we have argued
throughout the book, students of public policy know that,
depending on how one sees the causes of a problem and defines
the evaluative criteria, various alternatives to address it will
seem more or less appealing. Some will conclude that the
United States continues to offer a reasonable degree of social
and income mobility and thus the situation is fair, while others
will interpret it as showing an unacceptable degree of
inequality.
Many of the social programs developed throughout U.S. history
have attempted to deal with the poverty issue from different
perspectives. Social Security, for example, was developed
specifically to address poverty among the elderly. By this
measure, the program has been somewhat successful. According
to an analysis conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities using U.S. Census Bureau data, 39.2 percent of the
elderly would be in poverty without Social Security benefits.
With these benefits, the number in poverty drops to 9.2
percent.13
One of the goals of the food stamp program is at least to address
issues of severe hunger that could occur as a result of poverty.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (discussed later in this chapter)
supplements wages of the working poor to lift recipients out of
poverty. Programs such as AFDC and the newer TANF have

attempted to deal with the poverty of all individuals who
happen to fall below a certain income level or who have no
income at all.
Social Security
Social Security is the single largest federal government program
today, providing money for retired workers, their beneficiaries,
and workers with disabilities. While almost everyone these days
is covered by Social Security, some federal, state, and local
government employees and certain agricultural and domestic
workers are not. For beneficiaries over the age of sixty-five,
Social Security provides the largest component of their total
income. The presidential budget request for Social Security for
fiscal year 2019 was $1.047 trillion,14 which provides some
idea of the size and budgetary impact of the program. Social
Security was enacted in 1935 during the New Deal period as a
way to ensure that certain segments of society were guaranteed
an income after their working years. The perception of Social
Security both at its birth and today is that it is a social
insurance program. Other examples of such programs are
unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. With
these programs, citizens pay into a fund from which they expect
to receive money back when they are eligible. Because of this
designation, the public has always looked upon Social Security
as more acceptable than other government welfare programs.
Social Security is regarded not as a government handout but as
money returned based on an individual’s contribution or
investment. It should be noted, however, that in most cases a
Social Security recipient eventually receives more money than
he or she contributed as a worker.

Social Security is typically classified as a redistributive policy
program. Money is being redistributed across generations —that
is, from workers to nonworkers or young to old—rather than
between economic classes. Many people believe that their
personal contributions are going into a benefits account to be
paid out upon retirement, but that is a misconception. Social
Security is a pay-as-you-go program; someone’s current
contributions are paying for someone else’s current benefits.
The program is also considered an entitlement. That is, if a
person meets any of the eligibility requirements for Social
Security, he or she is entitled to its benefits. The program is
typically associated with payments to the elderly, and in fact
this is the system’s largest outlay, but other people are eligible
as well.
Who is entitled to Social Security? Qualifying for the program
is based partially on the number of years one has worked and
contributed to the program. As individuals work, they earn
“credits” toward Social Security. They can earn a maximum of
four credits a year, and most people need forty credits to be
eligible for benefits. Benefits fall into five major categories:
Retirement: Full benefits are currently provided at age sixty-
six plus a few months. The minimum age will gradually increase
to sixty-seven for those born in 1960 or later.
Disability: Benefits are provided to people who have enough
credits and have a physical or mental condition that prevents
them from doing “substantial” work for a year or more.
Family: If an individual is receiving benefits, certain family
members such as a spouse or children may also be eligible for
benefits.
Survivor: When individuals who have accumulated enough

credits die, certain family members—for example, a spouse
aged sixty or older—may be eligible for benefits.
Medicare: Part A (hospital insurance) is paid through part of
the Social Security tax. Typically, if individuals are eligible for
Social Security, they also qualify for Medicare.
The Social Security Administration also administers the
Supplemental Security Income benefits program for low-income
individuals who are at least sixty-five years old or disabled. The
program is not financed through Social Security taxes.
The Social Security program has two major goals, and in some
ways, these goals conflict with each other. First, the level of
benefits individuals receive is related to the amount they put
into the system. In other words, the greater their contributions,
the higher their benefits. Second, the program was supposed to
ensure that lower-income individuals had at least minimal
financial protection (Derthick 1979; Light 1995). Both goals are
included in the benefits formula, and although the rich receive
higher total benefits, the amounts are not proportionally higher.
The poor, on the other hand, get a much greater return on their
investment.
Most of Social Security is financed by a specific tax on income.
The rate of this tax has remained stable since 1990, with no
significant increases since 1985. Currently, the government
taxes individuals and their employers 6.2 percent for Social
Security and an additional 1.45 percent for Medicare, for a total
of 7.65 percent of their income. Theoretically, this tax is

earmarked, meaning the money collected goes specifically
toward the benefits; these taxes also are the only source for
these benefits. In reality, the federal government collects more
revenue through Social Security taxes than it is currently
spending to pay benefits. The government uses the excess
dollars for various purposes—most commonly to reduce the size
of the federal deficit.
The Social Security tax is capped at an annual income of
$132,900 (the 2019 amount, which normally increases each year
based on inflation) for a maximum contribution total of $8,240
per year. If an individual’s income is greater than $132,900, he
or she pays the maximum tax and no more for that year. In other
words, a person making $1 million or $10 million pays the same
amount of Social Security taxes as a person making $132,900.
And everyone is paying the same rate of tax, although self-
employed individuals pay twice the 6.2 percent rate since they
must contribute as both employees and employers. As discussed
in chapter 7, this formula makes the Social Security tax
regressive. Is the Social Security tax fair in light of some of the
considerations on tax policy that we introduced in chapter 7?
Keep in mind that limits are also imposed on the amount of
money that each person can receive each month from the
program. Some progressives have argued that one way to better
ensure the long-term stability of Social Security is to raise the
maximum income level or to not put a cap on it at all. This
would represent a Social Security tax increase on upper-income
individuals, but it would generate additional revenue.
Social Security is often referred to as the political “third rail”
because of the potential political danger associated with
attempts to reform it, a reference to the subway that receives its
power from this rail. Politicians foolish enough to touch the
issue of Social Security reform will likely find themselves voted
out of office—in other words, “fried.” Whenever policymakers

suggest changes, intense debate arises, and the proposals often
anger the people who are currently benefiting from the program
or expect to benefit in the near future. From a political
standpoint, there are two closely related reasons for the
controversial nature of any proposal to change the Social
Security system. First, the majority of the recipients are senior
citizens, who are demographically the people most likely to
vote in the United States. Politicians are necessarily wary about
crossing such a politically active group. Second, the power of
AARP, the major interest group representing the concerns of
seniors, is formidable. AARP claims a membership of more than
thirty-seven million people, and it is one of the most influential
interest groups in the nation. It also has a large professional
staff involved in lobbying. With these political resources, it
should be clear why efforts to make major reforms to Social
Security can be challenging. The box “Steps to Analysis: AARP
as an Advocacy Group” suggests some ways to become familiar
with the group’s activities. Nevertheless, almost everyone
believes that something must be done to reform Social Security,
because it is not sustainable under its current model.
Social Security’s Changing Demographics
The Social Security program, and the number of people eligible
for it, has changed dramatically since its inception in 1935. In
1945, the program had fewer than five million beneficiaries, but
by 2019, the number had grown to more than sixty-eight
million.15 The reason for this increase is simple: life
expectancy is higher today than it was fifty years ago. As more
people live beyond the age of sixty-five, larger numbers are
entitled to Social Security benefits. What this has meant is that
Social Security, as a program, has grown enormously since the
New Deal years and, by all estimates, will continue to grow
well into the future. Analysts are especially worried about the
impending retirement of the baby boom generation. The first

wave of Americans born between 1946 and 1964 started retiring
in 2011.
Social Security is obviously larger now in terms of total dollars.
But it also makes up a larger percentage of government
expenditures; it grew from about 14 percent of the federal
budget in 1969 to a projected 24 percent in 2019.16 More
problematic for Social Security is that while the number of
beneficiaries is growing larger, the number of workers
contributing to the program is becoming smaller, leaving fewer
workers per beneficiary. In 2017, the ratio of workers to retirees
was approximately 2.8:1; that is, 2.8 workers were supporting
each recipient. Compare this to 1960, when the ratio was 5.1:1,
or to 1950, when the ratio was 16.5:1, and the problem becomes
apparent. Projected estimates indicate that with no change to
Social Security, by 2033 each recipient will be supported by
only 2.2 workers,17 when the typical 2019 college graduate will
be only in midcareer. The graying of the U.S. population is
actually quite staggering when examined over time. Figure 9-4
shows the ratio of workers to Social Security beneficiaries since
1955 and the dramatic decrease in that ratio. Because of these
changing demographics, projections suggest that the amount of
revenue coming into the Social Security system will finance
only 75 percent of the benefits. For younger workers today to
receive full benefits, it might be necessary to increase the
withholding tax. This issue will affect people not only in the
long term upon their retirement but also in the short term if
Social Security taxes go up. Another option that has been
proposed primarily by Republicans would be to continue to
raise the retirement age up to seventy years. Would these moves
be fair and equitable? If not, what are the alternatives to
increasing the Social Security tax?
Problems with Social Security

Beneficiaries and policymakers have acknowledged for years
that even though the government has addressed some of i ts
problems, Social Security as it currently exists has a number of
flaws. In 2000, Congress and the president changed the rule
regarding the employment of retired workers and how it affects
their Social Security benefits. Under the old rules, beneficiarie s
who chose to work to supplement their income would lose part
of their Social Security benefits if they made more than a
certain amount of money during the year. With the change, all
workers sixty-six and over (the full-benefit or normal retirement
age for those born between 1943 and 1954) can earn as much as
they want without forfeiting part of their Social Security
benefits. Naturally, this change in the law benefits only those
senior citizens who continue to work.
Another Social Security issue the government addressed is the
fixed retirement age. Historically, the official age for collecting
Social Security benefits was sixty-five, but changes to the law
have gradually raised the age of eligibility to between sixty-six
and sixty-seven, depending on the year of birth, in recognition
of the population’s longer life expectancy and people’s
tendency to continue to work.18 Raising the age provides two
major benefits for Social Security’s solvency. First, if people
cannot receive full benefits until sixty-seven, they will not
receive as much money over their lifetimes. Second, if they
continue to work, they will also continue to contribute to the
program.
Increasing the retirement age raises other issues, however, such

as equity. Is it fair to the members of the current working
generation to demand that they work until age sixty-seven when
their parents or grandparents could retire at sixty-five? What
about quality of life? If people cannot retire until relatively late
in life, they may be less able to enjoy their retirement years
because of illness or physical limitations. Some social
commentators have already raised concerns about the amount of
time people spend working in American society, compared to
most European countries. In addition, a policy that encourages
later retirement may exacerbate problems affecting family life
and employment opportunities for younger people. A third
major problem with Social Security is the potential gender
inequity built into the system. When Social Security was
enacted, few married women worked outside the home, but labor
statistics have changed dramatically: in 2016, nearly 70 percent
did.19 Why is this a concern? First, women generally earn about
19.5 percent less money than men,20 which will affect their
benefits upon retirement. Second, women tend to stay at home
for parts of their career to raise families, which again will affect
benefits. Women also tend to outlive men by a few years, which
can be a further financial disadvantage.
Financing Social Security
Obviously, the biggest problem with Social Security and the one
that gets the most attention is the financing of the program and
the projections showing the system running out of money. The
strong economy during the 1990s partially improved the
situation of Social Security by increasing its solvency. Recent
projections by the Social Security Administration, however,
show that benefits and expenses are more than the taxes
collected by the program. In 2018, Social Security began to
draw down on the trust fund reserves in order to pay some of
the benefits.21 By 2033, the trust funds, which are in reality a

promise to pay, will be depleted, and the revenue coming into
the program will pay only about 75 percent of the benefits that
are due to retirees and other recipients.22 These kinds of
numbers spark concern among many younger Americans, who
say they do not believe that Social Security will be around when
they are eligible to collect it after they paid a lifetime of taxes
into the system.
Solution
s to financing Social Security are particularly problematic from
a political perspective. Like any other budget problem, the
“simple” solution to deal with the coming deficit in Social
Security would be to increase revenues flowing into the
program or to cut expenditures. In the context of Social
Security, how might that be done? To bring in more money,
policymakers could increase the tax on individuals and
employers by raising either the withholding percentage or the
maximum income that can be taxed, or both. If, however, the
government made a subsequent change in the benefits to which
retirees are entitled, then the additional revenues would be
partially offset. As discussed in other chapters, Congress always
finds it politically difficult to raise taxes even to protect a
popular program such as Social Security. The other course of

action is to reduce expenditures, which can be done in a number
of ways. As discussed earlier, the age of eligibility for benefits
has already gone up, which postpones the outlay of funds for a
number of years. Another idea, which has been used in the past,
is to delay the cost of living adjustment (COLA). Social
Security benefits go up annually, and the amount is linked to
changes in inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index
(CPI). By not implementing the COLA for a period of time, the
Social Security Administration could save billions of dollars.
Another solution would be to decrease the COLA outright. In
other words, it might only be a partial, not a full, inflationary
adjustment.
The reasons for exploring the COLA option are worth
considering. First, many workers in the United States do not
receive inflationary adjustments in their wages. Is it fair that
retirees get regular increases in their income while those who
are working do not? Second, as discussed in chapter 7, many
policy analysts believe the government’s current indicators,
such as the CPI, overstate inflation. There is not uniform
agreement regarding this, though. For example, some prices for
goods purchased by the elderly in areas such as health care and
drugs rise faster than the CPI. If the CPI is overstated, the

COLAs are actually higher than the true rate of inflation. For
the sake of illustration, if Social Security paid out $400 billion
in benefits this year and the inflation rate was determined to be
3 percent, it would mean an automatic increase in benefit
payments the following year (disregarding new beneficiaries or
deaths) to $412 billion. Delaying the payment of the COLA
increase for six months would save $6 billion a year. Adjusting
the COLA down by 1 percent would save $4 billion a year. If
either of these proposals were adopted for a number of years,
significant savings in the program would materialize. Some
have advocated for a different, and more generous, COLA for
seniors since their “basket of goods” is quite a bit different
from others. For example, seniors may be spending more on
prescription drugs, but may drive less and therefore use less
gasoline. Privatization is another approach to Social Security
financing. The idea here is that individuals would be allowed to
invest some of their withholding tax in mutual funds of their
choosing, or the government might be permitted to invest Social
Security funds in the stock market or other private instruments
to generate a higher rate of return than is now possible.
Currently, the money collected for Social Security is invested in
government bonds with a relatively low yield (albeit with little
risk). Many people believe that a partially privatized system
would increase the return and extend the financial life of the
system.

Privatization has been proposed by a number of people and
organizations. President George W. Bush proposed the idea of
personal accounts that would allow workers to contribute up to
four percentage points of their payroll taxes into a larger range
of account options that potentially would have provided them
with a greater return upon their retirement. President Bush’s
proposal would have partially changed the structure of Social
Security from pay-as-you-go to more of a 401(k) plan; it sets up
a private account for each person from which he or she can draw
upon retirement. The Social Security Advisory Council (1997)
included it as one of its proposals, although not all of the
committee members supported it.23 In addition, the National
Commission on Retirement Policy (1999), which addressed a
number of issues on how to fund retirement, included a plan to
allow for private investment of a portion of the withholding
tax.24 Much of the Bush plan was based on the commission’s
proposal, which would direct approximately one-quarter (or two
percentage points) of the current 7.65 percent payroll tax into
individual savings accounts for which people could make
choices about investment strategies for their money.

There are some things to consider with this kind of Social
Security reform. A system that permits individual retirement
accounts and siphons off a portion of the Social Security
withholding tax changes the investment picture. These accounts
would be specifically earmarked for the individual retiree. In
other words, the four percentage points withheld, plus interest,
would be dedicated directly to each worker, who would want to
get the largest return possible on these investments. Doing so
would likely mean investing outside of government securities,
particularly in the stock market. Is this a good idea? Related to
this, in the absence of other policy changes, and with four
percentage points of the withholding tax going into individual
accounts, the solvency of the current Social Security funds
becomes even more fragile. The funds would be depleted earlier
than under current projections. The Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities estimated that such a change would deplete the
reserves in 2030 rather than 2041.25 On the positive side, if
individuals make good investment choices, they will receive a
higher rate of return from Social Security and subsequently a
higher standard of living upon retirement. The negative effects
are equally obvious, and the most important of these is the
impact on financial markets of a prolonged economic downturn.
For example, the markets suffered some of the steepest losses in
2008 when the economy soured in the United States and abroad.

The losses demonstrated that there are large potential risks
associated with these kinds of investments. This situation raises
new questions: Will people be able to manage their
investments? How many will make poor choices on where to
invest their money? Will financial advisers pressure people to
make unwise decisions? Under this proposal, the investment
part of people’s Social Security donations will not be protected,
and retirees could receive less money than they would under the
current plan. Would society be willing to redirect money into
programs to ensure that people can make ends meet? Will action
be taken to provide any protection for these self-invested funds?
If the answer is yes to either of these questions, it may require
so much money from the federal budget that the purpose of the
legislation is defeated.26
The politics of Social Security reform also merits attention. We
have already mentioned the sensitive politics associated with
Social Security and potential reform efforts. Senior citizens are
an attractive target for politicians because, as a group, they turn
out to vote in large numbers. Not surprisingly, seniors and the
interest groups representing them, such as AARP, have been
wary of Social Security reform efforts that may decrease their
benefits. According to AARP, its members should be concerned

about privatization reform plans for two reasons: the potential
unpredictability of the stock market and fears that such accounts
will take money out of the Social Security account and pass the
bill along to future generations.27 It seems clear that any
reform option that includes a form of privatization will need to
proceed cautiously, assuring the current beneficiaries and
people close to retirement that their benefits will continue at the
same rate. Privatization programs tend to be more popular with
younger voters who have the time to take advantage of these
investments, are more likely to invest in the market, and are
concerned about the current pay-as-you-go system and its future
solvency. But there is one problem with this analysis. While the
young should be more supportive of such a plan, they are likely
to be the least engaged in the political debate because it is a
program from which they will not see benefits for decades.28
Each of the numerous and conflicting perspectives on proposals
to privatize Social Security comes with plenty of supporting
data and reports, but the debate is not only about personal
retirement and investment but is also, perhaps more important,
about how the program will continue to survive for future
generations. Social Security has been, and will continue to be, a
highly politicized issue, which makes major reforms

exceedingly difficult. Any reform effort, whether it is
privatization or less drastic changes such as increasing the
withholding tax or changing the benefit structure, also has
multiple economic implications for individuals and for the
nation as a whole. In addition, the perceived success of the
program in providing for the elderly and those who cannot work
raises important equity issues. All of these problems will
become even more significant both to individuals and to the
nation as more and more baby boomers retire. We will return to
this issue in the “Focused Discussion” section later in the
chapter. Welfare
Welfare policies, as most Americans think about them, concern
means-tested programs. To qualify for a means-tested program,
a potential recipient usually must meet an income test—perhaps
better described as a lack-of-income test. These programs
include food stamps, job training, housing benefits, and direct
cash payments to the poor. Means-tested programs differ from
social insurance programs such as Social Security: eligibility
for these programs is based on need rather than contributions
made to the program.

Because of this distinction, welfare programs do not engender
the same level of public support as Social Security. Most people
see welfare not as a social insurance program but as a
government handout or charity, which has different
connotations for many. Welfare programs are also
redistributive, but in this case funds are being transferred to the
poor from those who are paying taxes.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
One of the largest federal programs for the poor is the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly
known as the food stamp program and administered by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The plan
provides low-income households with financial resources to
purchase food. Eligible recipients, who need to meet certain
resource and income requirements, are allotted a dollar amount
based on the size of their household. In 2018, SNAP served over
forty million people at a cost of nearly $65 billion.29 One of
the changes made to the welfare program is that SNAP
recipients are expected to register for work and take available
employment. There have been recent reductions in the SNAP

program including some passed in 2014, which cut food stamps
by $800 million over the next decade (about 1 percent per year).
These cuts, along with proposals to require that certain
beneficiaries be required to work more, reflect conservative
criticism of the program, including concerns critics raised about
overreliance on the program by beneficiaries as well as
numerous accusations of fraud in the way benefits are sought
and distributed under the program. On the other hand, many
potential beneficiaries do not seek benefits to which they are
entitled because of complex bureaucratic rules associated with
the program; therefore, they either do not get adequate nutrition
or turn to other sources for help.30
Federal Assistance for Food.
SNAP is only one of many public programs geared to meet the
nutritional requirements of individuals. The USDA also
administers the federally assisted national school lunch and
school breakfast programs, which provide well-balanced,
nutritional meals at either no cost or reduced cost to children
from low-income households. The school lunch program was
first aimed at assisting schools to purchase food for nutritious
lunches. The passage of the National School Lunch Act in 1946

gave the program a permanent funding basis and stipulated how
funds would be apportioned to the states. The purpose of the
law was to ensure the “safety and well-being of the nation’s
children” through a program that encouraged consumption of
nutritious commodities and assisted states to provide such food
and necessary facilities.31 The program, as it is currently
conceived, started in 1971, when subsidized meals were tied
directly to the poverty guidelines. Today, children in a family at
or below 130 percent of the poverty level ($25,100 for a family
of four in fiscal year 2018) are eligible for free meals. Nearly
thirty million lunches were provided or subsidized by the
program in 2018.32 This program is clearly directed at children
living below or near the the poverty line, but it is also part of
the government’s larger effort to provide valuable nutrition
education to all Americans, including yet another revamping of
the food pyramid in 2005 and again in 2011 with the
introduction of the MyPlate campaign.33 Providing information
and education is one tool policymakers use to address public
problems. The federal government has even set up a centralized
website (www.nutrition.gov) where anyone can access nutrition
information.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children

For years, the nation’s major means-tested program was AFDC,
which was what most people referred to as “welfare.” AFDC
was intended to provide financial aid to low-income mothers
and children. The program benefited about fourteen million
people in its last year in existence and cost about $14 billion
annually (Peters 2000).
Critics denigrated the AFDC program for years on numerous
grounds. First, AFDC provided funds to individuals but
expected little in return. Welfare programs are not popular with
voters in the first place, because they believe the recipients are
getting something for nothing. Widespread media accounts of
people taking advantage of the system in various ways made the
public angry. Although little systematic evidence existed to
prove that these practices were common, the stories persisted
and helped lead to the program’s elimination. Other critics
disapproved of several of the program’s practices. In particular,
they said AFDC stigmatized the beneficiaries by requiring them
to respond to personal questions, home inspections, and other
administrative intrusions to qualify for the benefits (Cochran et
al. 1999; Peters 2000). Another frequently raised issue was that
AFDC seemed to provide a disincentive to work. Under AFDC,
beneficiaries could work only so many hours a month. If they

earned more than the specified amount, they would lose a part
of their benefits. The incentive therefore was to work only up to
the point of losing benefits. A related problem was that attempts
to move off welfare by taking a job were not necessarily a
rational solution for beneficiaries. By the time individuals paid
for child care, transportation, and perhaps health care, they
often had little money left, especially if they were being paid
minimum wage. The smart financial decision, therefore, was to
remain in the government welfare program.
The Earned Income Tax Credit
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal
income tax for low-income working individuals and families.
For those who qualify, if the EITC is greater than the amount
owed in taxes, the beneficiary receives a tax refund. The
government implemented the EITC over forty years ago as a
way to encourage work and to provide recipients with some tax
relief and in some cases even a tax refund. In 2018, the
maximum tax credit was $6,431 for a family with three or more
qualifying children. For those in deep poverty, the tax credit is
probably not significant enough to provide much improvement
to living conditions, but it could make a difference for low -
wage workers. Some have argued for an expansion in the EITC,

and President Obama’s 2015 budget request did just that. Such
an increase could protect families from short-term monetary
problems. It could also decrease the number of people who need
other government support programs.
Increases in the EITC would raise budgetary concerns that the
government would need to take into consideration, particularly
in times with large deficits. While the program encourages work
and is generally supported, an expansion of it could have
budgetary effects. In the current political climate, some also
raise the question of how much of a role government should
play in ensuring that people do not live in poverty. These issues
are also obviously tied to the ethical questions associated with
poverty.
All of the welfare programs discussed in this chapter have
raised difficult questions for the United States throughout its
history. Should we be comfortable with a segment of the
population living in poverty? What role should government
play, if any, to address this? What are the most appropriate or
effective programs to address this problem? This brings us to

one of the major changes in welfare that occurred in 1996.
Welfare Reform Options
The concerns with AFDC led to calls for reform from many
ideological perspectives. Liberals saw the program as
inadequate to provide enough benefits to ensure an adequate
standard of living and protect the children who were supposed
to be the primary beneficiaries. Conservatives, on the other
hand, were more interested in correcting the disincentives for
adult beneficiaries to work and try to become self-sufficient. R.
Kent Weaver (2000) discussed this conflict as the “dual
clientele trap” associated with calls for welfare reform:
Policymakers usually cannot take the politically popular step
of helping poor children without the politically unpopular step
of helping their custodial parents; they cannot take the
politically popular steps such as increasing penalties for refusal
to work or for out-of-wedlock childbearing that may hurt
parents without also risking the politically unpopular result that
poor children will be made worse off. (45) During the 1990s,

major forces came together to get welfare reform onto the
government agenda, and the result was a new policy. As Randall
B. Ripley and Grace A. Franklin (1986) state, in the U.S.
system of government, presidential leadership is often needed to
propose any major changes to redistributive programs. The
election of President Bill Clinton in 1992 and the subsequent
Republican victories in the 1994 congressional elections set the
stage for change. On the issue of public support for the poor,
Clinton said he wanted to “end welfare as we know it” (Clinton
and Gore 1992). His ideas to require work to receive benefits
and “demand responsibility” (Clinton and Gore 1992, 164) were
in some ways more in line with Republicans than with
traditional Democratic constituencies. The Republicans had
made welfare reform a tenet of their Contract with America, a
set of proposals that formed the basis of their campaign. Their
version of welfare reform emphasized work even more firmly
than the Clinton proposals (Weaver 2000). The ideological
changes in Congress likely also forced some movement in
Clinton’s position. The eventual outcome, after much
negotiation, political posturing, and strong opposition by many
liberal interest groups, was PRWORA.
Welfare Reform Law

PRWORA ended the old AFDC program and welfare as most
people know it, replacing it with the block grant program
TANF, which provided state governments with additional
flexibility to run their welfare programs. The law also imposed
work requirements for beneficiaries and put lifetime limits on
receiving benefits (Weaver 2000). The law included the
following new rules: Teenage parents are required to live with
their parents or in an adult-supervised setting.
States are required to ensure people are moving off the
welfare rolls and into work. For example, 50 percent of the
families were to be working thirty hours a week by 2002. States
not meeting the requirements are penalized by reductions in
their TANF block grant funds.
Adult recipients are limited to a total of five years of
receiving federal TANF funds, and states can either impose
additional limits or use their own money to fund recipients
beyond the five-year period.
The entitlement structure would change from a system in
which individuals who meet the eligibility requirements are
entitled to AFDC funds to one in which the states receive the
entitlement based on a federal block grant formula (Weaver

2000).
As part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which became law
in 2006, Congress reauthorized TANF and approved changes
that made the program stricter, made it more difficult for states
to meet the established goals, and took away some state
flexibility. These changes included the following:
Work participation rates are based on caseload declines after
2005 rather than 1995. Since significant case reductions
occurred particularly in the late 1990s, the result was that it was
more difficult for states to meet the goals.
Work participation rates are based on both TANF and state-
funded programs. In the past, state-funded programs did not
count toward the work rate.
Uniform methods for reporting hours, type of work accepted,
and other issues are adopted.
A new penalty of up to 5 percent is established for states that

do not implement internal procedures and controls consistent
with Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
regulations.34
In 2018, more than 2.2 million people were receiving TANF
benefits according to the HHS Administration for Children and
Families.35 The box “Working with Sources: Welfare and Its
Ability to Meet Needs” presents opportunities to examine this
issue in more depth.
Working with Sources Welfare and Its Ability to Meet Needs
The economy can have major implications for the general
population, particularly as it relates to people eligible for
welfare. High levels of unemployment and underemployment
can lead to more people qualifying for welfare programs such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program. Oftentimes, it is left up to state
governments to implement such programs, and this may occur
differently across the country. Go to the following sites and see
what they are saying about welfare and the economy and how
states may be reacting:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
(www.cbpp.org/research/index.cfm?fa=topic&id=42)
National Conference of State Legislatures
(www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/welfare-and-
poverty.aspx)
Urban Institute (www.urbaninstitute.org/welfare/index.c fm)
Consider the following questions:
What are these organizations saying about the effectiveness
of welfare programs to address the needs of those populations
most affected by poverty? Are these programs addressing the
needs of the poor?
How is this affecting states and their populations differently?
What concerns are being raised by these organizations?

What is your assessment of what should happen? What
improvements might you recommend, and why?
Analysis of the Welfare Reform Law
The welfare reform policy incorporated a number of components
of interest to public policy students. In terms of economic
efficiency, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO, 1996)
estimated that the new law would save $54 billion by fiscal year
2002, with most of the savings coming from reductions in
benefits to legal immigrants and other changes to existing
programs such as food stamps (Weaver 2000). These savings
obviously pleased many in the Washington community,
especially conservatives who wanted to cut funding for welfare
programs. It is also interesting to note, however, that many of
the suggestions for reforming welfare, such as providing job
training, child care benefits, or medical care to ensure that
adults can work, would actually be more expensive to
implement in the short run than the previous AFDC program.
Kent Weaver calls this problem the “money trap.” PRWORA,

however, did not fully endorse many of the high-cost provisions
being pushed by advocates of the work requirement.
Analysis of the Welfare Reform Law
The welfare reform policy incorporated a number of components
of interest to public policy students. In terms of economic
efficiency, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO, 1996)
estimated that the new law would save $54 billion by fiscal year
2002, with most of the savings coming from reductions in
benefits to legal immigrants and other changes to existing
programs such as food stamps (Weaver 2000). These savings
obviously pleased many in the Washington community,
especially conservatives who wanted to cut funding for welfare
programs. It is also interesting to note, however, that many of
the suggestions for reforming welfare, such as providing job
training, child care benefits, or medical care to ensure that
adults can work, would actually be more expensive to
implement in the short run than the previous AFDC program.
Kent Weaver calls this problem the “money trap.” PRWORA,
however, did not fully endorse many of the high-cost provisions
being pushed by advocates of the work requirement.

Politically, the public supported and continues to agree with the
changes to the welfare program. The public supported the work
requirement that would provide people with the skills they
needed to become self-sufficient, not to mention the reduction
of the number of out-of-wedlock births that seemed to come as a
result (Weaver 2000). As mentioned earlier, these work
requirements have been implemented with other support
programs as well. On the other side of the fence, many
individuals and groups worried about the welfare reforms.
Liberal politicians and interest groups, especially child
advocacy groups, expressed concerns that the reforms would
lead to higher levels of poverty for the affected populations
because of their inability or unwillingness to follow the new
requirements such as finding work. The supporters of welfare
reform, however, constituted a much larger coalition, which
included nearly all Republicans and conservative and moderate
Democrats. Moreover, the Clinton administration was feeling
pressured to follow through on one of its major policy
proposals, especially as the president was running for a second
term.
Looking at the law from the point of view of individual

freedom, it is clear that in some ways the welfare reforms
impinged on a measure of the beneficiaries’ freedom. In fact,
many parts of the law reflected what has been called “new
paternalism,” whose adherents had found the permissiveness in
the welfare state appalling (Mead 1986). Requiring work to
receive benefits not only takes away part of an individual’s
freedom but also imposes a different set of values—the
government’s values—on how people should live. On the other
hand, taxpayers prefer a program that has clear guidelines and
requirements for what it takes to receive benefits. Ethically, the
questions that inevitably arise ask what happens to children
under this program if their parents do not meet their obligations
or if they exceed their time limits for receiving benefits. Is the
nation willing to cut off benefits to this vulnerable population?
Ultimately, one needs to evaluate the success of welfare reform
based on the goals of the program. According to Lawrence Mead
(2007), three major goals were associated with welfare reform
based on what the government did: (1) enforce work
requirements, (2) reduce dependency, and (3) promote marriage.
A fourth goal, to reduce poverty, would follow from the
previous conditions. Goals one and two relate very explicitly to
the important question of whether PRWORA has been effective
at removing people from the welfare rolls. The initial numbers
showed a dramatic decrease in the welfare caseloads since the
enactment of the law in 1996. By the end of 1998, for example,

caseloads had decreased by 38 percent, and many states
experienced caseload reductions higher than 50 percent. These
decreasing trends in the welfare rolls continued into 2008, even
with a sluggish economy and increases in unemployment and
poverty, but saw an increase in 2009 and then reductions again
starting in 2011 and continuing through 2015 as the economy
began to turn.36 The changes to TANF made in 2006 that link
program goals and caseload reductions made it more difficult
for states to claim success or perhaps to make some hard
decisions regarding how they will meet the new work rules.
States could choose to assist fewer poor families in order to
meet new requirements.37
The initial positive caseload numbers led many to announce that
welfare reform was a major success. Even initially the U.S.
Government Accountability Office cautioned against making
such grand assessments at this stage. According to the GAO
(1998), the success documented by its studies might be a factor
of the positive economic conditions that prevailed during the
mid-to late 1990s. In addition, the first beneficiaries who moved
from welfare to work were likely to have been the easiest
people to place.

Moreover, much “remains unknown about how families fare
after leaving welfare with respect to economic stability and
child and family well-being” (U.S. Government Accountability
Office 1998, 8). Another GAO report (1999) found that people
were indeed getting jobs after being on the welfare rolls, but the
jobs paid so little that the families were still relying on other
forms of aid, such as food stamps and the EITC, to maintain a
semblance of economic stability. One analyst at the Urban
Institute described the situation as follows:
Figuring out whether welfare reform is a success means
looking beyond how families that recently left welfare are
faring today. For those families that have left welfare and
joined the workforce, success will depend on whether they move
into jobs with higher wages and benefits so that they can be not
just better off than when they were on welfare but move further
toward self-sufficiency.38
Evaluation of PRWORA and debate about its effectiveness
continues. As is often the case in determining the impact of
public policies (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993), sufficient
time must pass before analysts can accurately assess how wel l

the act is working. Is twenty years after its passage
“sufficient”? There have clearly been different studies regarding
the law from many sides of the debate. A major test of the law
occurs whenever the country experiences an economic
slowdown. As the unemployment rate inched upward, advocates
for the poor grew concerned that this would cause problems
with the TANF program and its beneficiaries and increase the
number eligible for cash assistance.39 Many states had used
their TANF funds to provide services to people who moved off
the welfare rolls into work. These funds supported services such
as child care and medical care and have helped former
recipients move into jobs. If more people need cash assistance
because jobs are scarce, will these services be reduced? The
left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has
documented the decline in TANF’s reach. As shown in Figure 9-
5, CBPP uses the “TANF-to-Poverty Ratio” as a way of looking
at how poor families access TANF. The figure shows a dramatic
decrease in the ratio suggesting that TANF is less responsive to
need.40 Another issue that merits serious thought is the time
limit imposed on beneficiaries. Whenever the country
experiences recessions or economic slowdowns, these kinds of
questions are raised anew. The CBPP argues that the block-
grant-oriented TANF program is problematic in that it does not
increase even with growth in the number of eligible people. The
result has been a series of negative consequences such as (1)

TANF providing fewer families with cash assistance, (2) TANF
playing a lesser role in reducing poverty than AFDC, and (3)
TANF serving few families in need.41 A 2012 GAO report on
the TANF program suggests that while the program provides a
“basic safety net to many families and helped many parents step
into jobs,” questions remain regarding the “strength and breadth
of the TANF safety net.”42 Is the public willing to entirely cut
off benefits to needy individuals, especially children?
Other studies of welfare reform showed a level of success but
also raised cautions. While former welfare recipients were
entering the job market in higher numbers and seemed
financially better off, much of the reason had to do with the
financial support provided by other programs such as food
stamps and the EITC. Yet, while economically more
comfortable than before, many of these people still hovered
around the poverty line (Rodgers 2005). The poorest households
may continue to have particular concerns in that the TANF cash
benefits are losing value. According to the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, cash assistance benefits are 20 percent
below the original 1996 levels in thirty-seven states. The U.S.
Census Bureau also found that those most vulnerable had the
greatest hardships.43 And as noted earlier, issues of deep
poverty continue to persist.44

The question of effectiveness is critical as policymakers decide
what may be the next step in addressing poverty and welfare
issues. Has welfare reform worked? From the federal
government’s perspective, the stricter requirements were
paramount in decreasing the caseloads. But state officials see
the greater flexibility provided through block grants as a
primary reason for its success. This flexibility allowed states to
develop their own solutions based on local conditions.45 How
this question is resolved can affect future decisions. Should
requirements be even stricter to receive benefits, or should
states be provided with additional funding and flexibility?
Additional data and analysis are critical to better understand the
wide range of issues. The Urban Institute has suggested five
major areas for additional research: (1) improving data capacity,
(2) understanding changes in welfare participation, (3) tracking
current and former welfare recipients to identify persistent
needs and problems, (4) understanding how specific state
initiatives affect the well-being of current and former
recipients, and (5) expanding beyond TANF to learn more about
how other public programs are serving low-income families.46
While there are different opinions regarding the success of

welfare reform, many seem to agree that the direction welfare
reform took in 1996 was the correct one. Welfare caseloads
went down significantly from the early 1990s, and more people
are working for their benefits. But are these changes the best
way to evaluate success? Remember that the purpose of these
programs was to lift people out of poverty. Did that happen? As
mentioned earlier, poverty continues to be a problem in the
United States, and deep poverty seems to be increasing. As
stated earlier, the 2017 Census Bureau reported over thirty-nine
million people in the United States were living below the
poverty line. There are other problematic signs regarding the
state of the poor. Families leaving the TANF rolls more recently
seem less likely to find a job, and caseloads for other poverty
programs, such as food stamps, were increasing for a time
particularly during the recessionary period.47 Growing poverty
rates with continued decreases in TANF caseloads seem
counterintuitive and may suggest a need for a different standard
to measure the success of these programs (K. Murray and
Primus 2005). A large number of people, even those who found
work as a result of welfare reform, still remain impoverished. In
addition, what remains unclear is how well the families that left
welfare are doing economically.48

It is of interest that the original PRWORA had no requirements
to track these families, a serious matter from the perspective of
policy design and evaluation. Instead, the only available data
came from the states, and only from states that chose to present
the information. These data may display only snapshots of
welfare recipients and their conditions (McQueen 2001). They
continue to come in, but if the information is inadequate, how
will policymakers know what changes to make in welfare
programs? Are former welfare recipients better off or worse
off? Should work requirements be increased? On the positive
side, think tanks and other nonprofit groups are also collecting
and analyzing data on these problems.
Economic and Effectiveness Issues
The AEI/Brookings report sees the issue of work as an
important element in addressing poverty. One recommendation
is to “make work pay more for the less-educated,” and within
this area two specific proposals are to expand federal childless
EITC and to raise the minimum wage. The EITC was discussed
earlier in the chapter and has been a successful program for
many years, but as the report points out, it offers little support
to childless adults. Such a policy would provide a bit more
money to this population. An expansion in the program would

therefore put additional money in the wallets of these
recipients. Proponents of the EITC also point out that this
program may provide families with the ability to “save for a
rainy day” and protect them from short-term monetary
problems. At the macroeconomic level, more money can lead to
additional expenditures or savings, both of which can have a
positive effect on the overall economy. In addition, families
may be less likely to enter other, more expensive government
support programs. To prevent a disincentive to work, some
might suggest a minimum number of hours of work in order to
receive this benefit.
Raising the federal minimum wage is the second related
proposal put forth by the AEI/Brookings report. An increase in
the minimum wage would also put additional money in the
wallets of those working at this wage and would have similar
individual and macro-level benefits. President Obama suggested
an increase to $10.10 an hour over a period of time and then
indexing it to inflation. A number of states have actually
increased their minimum wages above the federal rate,
including California at $12.00 an hour, New York at $11.10,
and Alaska at $9.89 (all for 2019 and set to rise in future
years).50

Both of these proposals have economic and potential deficit
effects. The EITC is an appropriated item in the budget, and any
expansion of the tax credit will have budgetary implications and
potentially increase the federal deficit unless it is offset in some
way. Increasing the minimum wage has always generated
different opinions regarding the economic impacts. A minimum
wage is similar to setting a price floor—the minimum price at
which a product can sell. In this case, individuals represent a
supply of workers, and setting a minimum wage could lead to a
situation where the number of workers is greater than the
demand for those workers. More simplistically, employers may
be less willing to hire workers when wages are higher because
of the additional costs. Opponents to minimum wage increases
have often raised this issue as a burden, particularly on small
businesses, that would have adverse economic consequences.
This is why even with some state minimum wage increases, they
are limited to businesses that employ a larger number of people.
As noted, we know that a number of states have set minimum
wages higher than the federal level, and there seems to be little
or no effect on the number of jobs or the states’ overall
economy. Another common argument for those opposing a
minimum wage increase is that it has a limited effect on those
in poverty who really need relief. They argue that a low
percentage of workers actually earn this wage, and those who do
are mainly teenagers working for extra spending money, not to

make ends meet. In addition, opponents state that an increase in
the wage will lead to employee layoffs, particularly in entry-
level positions. Therefore, the policy would actually do more
harm to those it is intended to aid because they will not have
the skills necessary for higher-wage positions.
The economics of these proposals not only highlight
disagreements about their effects—they also show differing
political positions. In addition, there are differing opinions
regarding how effective these policies would be in dealing with
poverty problems in the United States. Some relate directly to
how the problem has been defined for purposes of this focused
discussion.
Another proposal from the AEI/Brookings report is to “increase
investments in two underfunded stages of education,” in which
the organizations are referring to early childhood and
postsecondary education. Looking at one of these—early
childhood—we know that the path to quality education starts
prior to entering kindergarten. Development is critical at the
early childhood stage, and few efforts are provided by
government in this area. Most of the focus of government
education policy is on the K–12 years. Proposals to increase
funding for quality child care, particularly for low -income

people, and state expansion of preschool education are examples
to address this concern. The argument is that we need to ensure
all students are entering into the K–12 years adequately
prepared and not allow those without such access to fall behind.
Such policies, theoretically, would lead to an overall positive
gain in education throughout the children’s lifetimes, which
would help address poverty concerns. Public education has
always been considered a public good, and one of the economic
arguments often made for its funding is that all of society gains
from a well-educated population. In other words, there is a
positive externality that society gains from education.
Clearly the other side of the economic issue is most directly
related to budgets at different levels of government. Education
funding is generally a discretionary expense within budgets, and
as noted in chapter 7, this is a decreasing portion of the federal
budget. Changes in the overall budget spending priorities or
increases in revenue would likely be necessary to fund such
programs. This is equally true at the state and local levels,
which are also seeing much of their discretionary budgets
reduced due to increases in Medicare and Medicaid budgets and
spending in other areas.

Political Issues
The political issues of these proposals are relatively
straightforward. Both expanding the EITC and increasing the
minimum wage have the political advantage of being related to
work requirements, so they could have a bit more support than a
traditional welfare program that may not have any requirements.
General population support is important because the
beneficiaries of these programs often are not adequately
represented by interest groups and have a more difficult time
getting their voices heard. Political organization can be difficult
when those in poverty are worrying about their next meal or
whether they may be out on the street. While there are
organizations, such as the National Coalition for the Homeless,
that represent the poor, mobilizing this population for political
purposes can be difficult. These types of policies are generally
classified as “redistributive programs,” meaning that as one
group of people benefits, some other group may lose. In the
case of minimum wage, for example, those getting a higher
minimum wage are benefiting at the expense of the employer
paying the wage.
On the other side of the political equation will likely fall those
stressing free-market economies that would set wages based on

the supply and demand of the labor market. These groups and
individuals would argue that government should not be
involved, particularly in minimum wage policies. Organizations
such as the National Small Business Association argue that
increases in the minimum wage will force small businesses to
cut their workforce because of the increased cost not just of
minimum wage workers but of all workers.51
The EITC raises more general budgetary issues that the
government needs to take into consideration, as well as
potential concerns by organizations worried about the federal
deficit. While the program encourages work and is generally
supported, an expansion of it could have budgetary effects,
particularly an increase in the federal deficit. As noted earlier,
this will require some important discussions regarding
government priorities, including just how much of a role
government should play in ensuring that people do not live in
poverty.
The politics of education funding at all levels has a number of
elements. First, there is the question of whether the amount of

money being spent is leading to positive outcomes —in other
words, the effectiveness argument. Second, there are different
opinions about whether education should be considered a public
or a private good. This argument is particularly relevant in
terms of higher education, but occurs at all levels. You see
evidence of this when local school referendums call for new or
improved facilities. Some question how they will benefit from
this if their children are grown and out of school—a private
benefit perspective. Another somewhat political issue as it
relates to poverty is drawing and understanding the line of
causality between education and poverty, and the fact that it is
circular. In other words, poverty can hinder efforts to provide a
quality education, and less education increases the likelihood of
poverty. It is a complex problem to understand and address.
Ethics and Equity Issues
At first glance, one might think the ethics and equity issues
associated with programs dealing with poverty would be
somewhat simple and agreed to by all. Shouldn’t we live in a
society where people no longer need to live in poverty? Who
could argue against this or, for that matter, the programs that
address poverty? Of course, as is true with most public policy
questions, especially as they relate to issues of ethics and

equity, matters are never quite so simple. The devil is in the
details, and your perspective on this issue may depend on how a
problem is defined and the types of solutions that are offered.
One policy recommendation from the AEI/Brookings report is to
promote delayed, responsible childbearing. Research suggests
that children born from unplanned pregnancies or to unmarried
people are more likely to be in poverty. The medical technology
exists to address this issue, but its use is often met with ethical
controversies. Those supporting policies geared toward more
intensive counseling on the issue of childbearing or making
birth control more available point to data and research regarding
the benefits in reducing unwanted pregnancies and how this will
potentially lead to better lives for all. Opponents suggest that
such policies encourage young women and men to partake in
premarital sex. Many also believe that government funding
should not be used for such activities. This is clearly one
recommendation where there are interconnections between
personal responsibility and government action, which also can
raise additional ethical or “too much government” concerns.
Programs such as these often fall to state and local government
to develop, pay for, and implement.

In terms of increases in the EITC or minimum wage, there are
also potential equity concerns. Questions of equity often
examine the difference between equality of opportunity and
equality of results; and the United States has focused
historically more on equality of opportunity. Do programs such
as the EITC and increases in the minimum wage provide
individuals with additional opportunities to increase their
income status and lead them out of poverty? Equity questions
often arise regarding the role of government in the free market,
and programs that require a specific minimum wage directly
insert the government into matters of employer–employee
contracts as they relate to a fair wage based on supply and
demand. Of course, the other equity issue that should be
considered is what effect these policies have on businesses or
employees if they find themselves out of a job as a result of a
minimum wage requirement. Should government step in if a
person is willing to work for less than the minimum wage? Isn’t
a low wage better than no wage?
In considering education funding, the lack of government
funding in early childhood raises equity concerns due to the

differences between the rich and poor in accessing
prekindergarten education and development. This difference can
carry through to a child’s continued preparation and education
in the future. Not providing such opportunities for all seems to
go against our nation’s perspective of equality of opportunity.
On the other hand, education funding at all levels continues to
get crowded out due to other perceived priorities with
arguments very much turning to private benefits—why should I
pay more for early childhood programs if I don’t have children
or my children are older? Society needs to come to terms with
the question of whether public education and its funding
provides a societal benefit in which we share the costs.
Addressing ongoing poverty in the United States raises complex
concerns. While no one wants high levels of poverty, the
individualistic perspective of our society and culture, along
with the difficult politics surrounding poverty, make it a
difficult problem to adequately address.
Conclusions

This purpose of this chapter is to examine the challenge of
poverty and some of the major programs designed to address it.
These programs aim to ensure an adequate income to make ends
meet, and they have enjoyed different levels of support from the
general public. Social Security is often heralded as a prime
example of successful government intervention to deal with a
public problem. While most agree that the nation needs to
maintain a guaranteed income for senior citizens based on their
previous working lives, they would also agree that the current
Social Security program has some deficiencies and faces serious
problems. Welfare programs, on the other hand, have not
experienced the same level of public support, and this attitude
is apparent in the debates over welfare programs and subsequent
changes in how they are administered.
Poverty continues to exist in the United States, despite the
programs aimed at relieving it and getting people into the
workforce. It is important to understand not only the statistics
of poverty but also the political dimensions in order to see the
types of choices our government systems make to address the
issue. Addressing poverty from the perspective of individual
responsibility, for example, will lead government in a different
direction than if we believe the issue is more about equitable

opportunities and the role of the economic market. Many of the
programs developed to address poverty are characterized as
means tested and, as noted, typically not as politically
supported. One reason why it is important to evaluate such
polices is because of this lesser support. Understanding if the
programs (past, present, and future) are addressing issues of
poverty and allowing citizens to be successful is important for
political support as well as ensuring that the nation uses its
resources in the best way possible. Poverty continues to be a
concern, and finding and evaluating ways to address this issue
requires the type of analysis discussed throughout the book.
Likewise with Social Security, what type of choices are people
willing to accept in order to ensure its financial stability? Every
student of public policy needs to understand the issues and
know how to find and assess the available data to make
informed decisions about these programs.
FROM PROFESSOR PADM550
Well, hello again. My name is Caleb Fisher, and you've
probably seen me enough in these videos thus far, but we have
to press on. In this module, we're talking about social policy.
What is the role of government in social issues? And I want to
provide some biblical thoughts again. And the first slide here is
history of social justice. And basically, there are some themes

that we need to be aware of. Some of them are good, some of
them are bad. I think the price of information we have Martin
Luther saying, you know, he's emphasizing from scripture, the
priesthood of all believers that you and I are made in God's
image. And therefore, what we do, whether we're a priest or a
blacksmith, our work is sacred and an act of worship that we
have individual value. And so that had incredible social
implications for society at that time. And the Reformation
rejected the notion of the divine right of kings, rejected the
notion that the Catholic Pope has all the authority that he
controls your relationship with Jesus Christ? No. Christ. And I,
we have a unique relationship directly through Christ to the
Father. And we don't need a human authority to hinder that. And
we have the right to have the scripture in our own language and
to read it. And to grow person with Jesus Christ with the power
of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the Word of God. The
Protestant Reformation was not just a religious revolution, it
was a political and social revolution because the entire political
social structure, the Middle Ages was predicated upon the elites
having all the power, basically domineering over those who did
not. The church and the king controlled everything. The
problem information, we can change that. Another effort,
Marxism critiquing the injustices of the invest revolution and
the, the inequalities that the rich hat over the poor and how the
poor were exploited. We as Christians, should be very quick to

agree with Marxist types about how that happens even today.
Big business, as I said in a previous video, big business exploits
people often and usually fueled by relationship with big
government. That's just the way it seems to work. It could be
very careful about that, that tendency. We have the progressive
movement, which we've spoken about. You saw in the other
videos about the progressive movement in it and its history.
Trying to change and solve problems in society through
expertise, through government expertise, get the best and
brightest in one room. Let them solve the problems, given the
authority to solve the problems. Unfortunately, what that does,
it gives government too much power, gives bureaucracies too
much power, generate solutions which are top-heavy and out of
touch with local realities. It sounded good. In the room r ole the
geniuses were together, January and the solution. But
meanwhile, back in the real world, there are certain key
important details that make that solution less than realistic. And
sometimes it's so out of touch with the realities of the situation
on the boots on the ground situation, that the solution is more
constraining than it is helpful. We also have relayed to the
progressive movement, this idea of the social gospel. Many
people in the modern era, you know, I'll go to church. I'll, I'll,
I'll be a good person, but we're not going to look at Jesus Christ
as the savior of mankind, the God-Man, the living Word of God.
We're not going to treat him as such. We're just going to use

him as a good example for how we should all be towards one
another. He does not have the power to change our hearts,
actually make us love our neighbors. But we should use him as
an example. And we basically domesticate the God-Man, the
eternal living Word of God, and use them as just a little poster
child for being a good neighbor and being involved in our, our
neighborhoods and our communities. Now what a tragic thing to
do to Jesus Christ, our Savior and King. But that's what the
social gospel basically did. We have to be aware of that. So
there is a certain brand of theology day in America that
emphasizes the social gospel doing the right thing and your
neighbor in your neighborhood, in your communities to care for
the poor. And that's, that's commendable, but not the expense.
Having a relationship with Jesus Christ and with the
acknowledgment with that comes that we need a Savior, that the
people that are being afflicted by various issues in our
communities often are participating with that problem because
they need that they have not been saved by the power of God
and we need to acknowledge that now, the next slide defines
covenant. Now you've already had this. This is just review.
Covenant is an agreement among various price ratify a long-
term mutually informing relationship. And scripture God
covenants with man, and thus in doing so, affirms the dignity of
you and I. If God would covenant with us, if he would a limit
himself to promises with us, then therefore, if he'll do that with

us and we had better do that with one another. How could we
not God of the universe would do, deign to do that with us. And
therefore, the rights of everyone is protected by your own rights
are protected by protecting the rights of everyone else, your
interrelationship, by helping them. You help yourself by caring
for them. You ensure that you're cared for. And so this is the
model that Scripture gives us. It rejects ramp and individualism,
where it's all about me and I just kinda come home and do
whatever I want. I don't really care about my neighbors. It also
rejects the kind of a heavy-handed collectivism that we see in
some societies where you are, are basically under the heavy
weight of what society with the families and clans want. It's all
about them, not you. The viral rejects, both of those extremes of
puts us. I buy carrying for the group by having a group
consciousness, by being involved in my community, in my
neighborhood, my church, my society, my rights will be
protected. That's a powerful notion of individuality. And the
group are both protected in the biblical notion of covenant. And
so key covenantal terms by way of review, the Hebrew term has
said is loving fulfillment of Coda obligation, love and duty are
intertwined. You don't separate your duty from your love for
someone. In our romanticize society today we think of true love
having to be all about this romantic feeling. And if that, that
romantic feeling is not, there must not be authentic. On the
contrary, scripture says, if your love is authentic, you are

carrying out your duty and you're going the extra mile and
doing so. Because after all, Jesus Christ has said, personified,
he went the extra mile men more than that by taking on our sin
and die on the cross for us. And then we have mutual
accountability in a couple relationship, I am accountable to you.
You're accountable to me in this class. I'm going to be the
professor, but I'm accountable to you, even though you as a
sooner accountable to me, we're in this together in the learning
process. And then stemming from that is a notion of federalism.
Federalism, the Latin word for covenant is fetus FED IS
covenantal theology very popular in the American founding era,
the colonial era. And with that came this F son of federalism, a
covenantal biblical idea that said you share power in a
covenantal structure. No one has all the power. And so that's
why I find fathers when they first created the system of
government that we have first, the one with a confederacy, were
the states had basically all the power and a very weak national
government that had issues. We can debate the merits of the
direction they took, but they still had a federal system in the
revised constitution that we have today. The states still have a
lot of power. The national government does not have all the
power. Now guys, what this means is that in a covenantal
system, you cannot solely rely upon government to solve all
your problems. You and I as mean bait be made in God's image,
have obligations to one another. And what we often forget is

that if we advocate in our own lifestyles, succumbing to
addictive behaviors, succumbing to apathy. We hurt those
around us even are not involved. And as we die on the inside, as
we give into addictive behaviors and laziness, whatever it may
be by not being self-governing, are actually hurting those rats
because we cannot help them. And we begin to model this
internal moral decay. To say nothing of not caring for the poor.
To say nothing, I'm not caring for the sick and the widows and
the elderly. If we advocate everything to be government, we are
not fulfilling our God-given obligations. I hope that makes
sense. And in the history of Kevin, I've, I basically refer to the
American founding error with respect to federalism. But
obviously it's in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ fulfills the
covenantal ideas in the Old Testament in the new testing with
his own sacrifice. In fact, that the better word is not Old
Testament versus New Testament. It's old covenant versus New
Covenant. Because a testament in a testament, if I'm writing my
final will and testament, I'm telling you what you get from me.
And there's no negotiation, there's no sense of mutual
accountability. But in a covenant, God covenants himself with
us. We see that covenant fulfilled ultimately in Jesus Christ. We
see this in the process Reformation. When, when Martin Luther
and others rebelled against the power structure of that time,
they were, they were appealing to covenants will emphasis of
scripture. We talked about this in earlier modules, how, how the

term was translating the scripture, that the reformers embrace a
more covenantal view of scripture, that it gave him the basis,
the moral authority to critique the divine right of kings to
critique the authority of the Pope's, the unlimited authority.
They were, they were persecuted where they go, they went to
America, the French Huguenots, the, the, the Calvinists, the
Anabaptists, they came, they brought their federal, their
covenant theology to America. So the question is, if a
covenantal perspective on society limits government and
prescribe certain confines for government, why would it not
also can find how we tackle policy problems in this leads us to
the next slide on sphere sovereignty. This is from Abraham
cooper himself very big into reformed theology and covenantal
theology. He was get this in Holland. He was a hero. He owned
a newspaper. I believe he's a professor, he was a pastor. He
wrote columns and newspaper articles, but he's also Prime
Minister. You think the guy was busy? I would say so. And he
really articulate this idea of sphere sovereignty based upon
covenantal principles. And what it says, if we're all in this
together, and if no one source has all the power, that implies by
default that various entities in society share power. And in fact,
he would say that each sphere in society is meant to bring glory
to God, its own unique ways that the other spheres cannot
infringe upon the authority given to it by God. So the arts have
their own authority to worship God and it's unique way.

Business has its own authorities. You need God to worship God
in its own unique way. Families, churches, and yes, government.
And the point that we take from sphere sovereignty is that we
have limited government but active community, communities.
That we are actively engaged in our communities and in society
to solve problems. In this goes back to what de Tocqueville
noticed, an early American government. That early American
people, citizens. They did not rely upon government saw the
problems that got involved these voluntary associations. As the
TOEFL describe it, they would just solve prompts, a certain
meeting together to solve problems and get things done. So
today, in today's society, any policy issue we attack if we're
going to say big government shouldn't be doing it, we better
have a solution for who should be doing that's ultimately going
to be you and I involved in our communities. Now in society
today, we have this big battle between conservatives and
liberals. And I think we need to kinda take the heat out of that
debate. Great book to read is Tim Keller the protocol God. And
his point is really that, that God was protocol and even pursuing
either sun. Like he shouldn't be a nice either. So not just the
protocol son who ran away with all the money. Yes, He was a
jerk out of control and living on life on the edge. But the other
son who sit behind, who had basically kinda be the
conservative, I'm going to work hard. That's sudden was just
replace at the first sign just in a different way. He was self-

righteous. He felt entitled to God's blessing. So Keller's point is
that okay? Yeah, maybe the prodigal son is more like the, the
liberal who believes in all this promiscuity and you do whatever
you want, and there's no moral norms. Who are you to judge me,
et cetera? Is that wrong? Sure, but what else is just as wrong?
The self-righteous, arrogant, older brother, kind of another
religious, self-absorbed person that really isn't in love with a
lower, just trying to earn God's favor through good behavior.
Now guys, that fits kind of nicely with a typical conservative,
liberal debate at the concert is very concerned about moral
righteousness and individual responsibility that lazy bum
shouldn't have left the home to begin with. And lucky, waste all
your money, why should I help them? Well, that's not quite a
biblical responses it now. So, so we all need a Savior were all a
mess and our own unique special ways we need a Savior. We
need to work together, put asides of those differences. Now as I
think as a Christian model, this final application, we would say
as, as Christians that we must allow any policy issue, a personal
spiritual component of that problem to be addressed. We're not
going to really solve the problem. If we're not solving the
spiritual and personal component of that problem. And that by
default is going to mean we're going to need more Just
governmental solutions to any issue. Thus, policy solutions
must be as local and personal as possible and must allow for an
infusion of biblical truth. So in that MAY, can, should analysis

a lot of times we're going to say, no, national government may
not solve this problem. But that does not mean that doesn't stop
there. We said then who should communities, churches, non-
profits, businesses, families, neighborhoods working together to
solve that problem? And yes, we do acknowledge that systemic
legal, political, structural changes will need to be made in many
cases is not just a personal problem, it's not just a matter of
what you seem to get a job, get get off your feet and get to
work. It's not just that using to break your chemical addiction.
Often there, the whole society is geared to help that person fail.
And those need to be addressed as well. And often that doesn't
mean a governmental intervention. Obviously, with that though,
we emphasize human responsibility, that has to be allowed for a
lot of progressive solutions only emphasize redistribution,
redistribution of wealth, and so forth. And finally, as I've said
before throughout this presentation, community level
participation and cooperation. Again week, if you're a
conservative like myself, it's very easy to say big government
shouldn't be doing something. We don't often focus on the other
side of that coin. What should you and I be doing if our entire
political career is just focused on what government shouldn't be
done. We're kind of not doing a good job of presenting the
biblical answer to that question in that problem. So on that note,
I hope you think about that in terms of your future career and
what God might have you to do. You're not just a career

politician or you're not just a career criminal justice person.
You're a human being made in God's image. You are a neighbor.
You are a member of your community, you're a member of your
church. You are your brother's keeper. Contrary to what Keynes
said in the book of Genesis, you are called to care for your
neighbor. Thank you for your time.
Read: Monsma: Chapters 8
8: Poverty
“Be Open-Handed toward the Poor and Needy”
(Deuteronomy 15 : 11)
PATTI IS A FRIEND OF MINE who dropped out of college to
marry the man she loved. They soon had two little boys. She
was a full-time mom, while her husband worked as a teacher.

Theirs was an all-American, even idyllic, family. Or so it
seemed. Then suddenly Patti’s husband left, moved to another
state, and sued for divorce. Patti soon discovered that her
husband had left her with back rent owed on their house, as well
as other unpaid bills. She had never held a full-time job and,
having left college early, had few marketable skills. Her
husband made only sporadic child-support payments; because he
had moved to a different state, a cumbersome, inefficient child-
support system was unable to collect the financial support that
was due her and her two little boys.
Patti was at the end of her rope. She struggled to feed her
children and faced the very real prospect of being homeless. Not
knowing where else to turn, she obtained welfare through the
Aid to Families of Dependent Children (now called Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]). With the help of her
caseworker who was willing to bend a few rules, she returned to
college, completed her degree, obtained full-time employment,
and was able to leave the welfare rolls.
There is much we can learn from Patti’s story. Poverty can

strike suddenly and through no fault of one’s own. Government-
sponsored welfare programs can work as intended, providing
desperately needed temporary help while someone obtains skills
needed to obtain a job and become a self-supporting,
contributing member of society.
But not all stories are like Patti’s. Some people are poor
because they made wrong, sinful choices and are unwilling or
unable to work hard to obtain the training that will lead to
employment. Still others are poor due to ill health or deeply
embedded psychological problems. Their family backgrounds
may never have taught them the attitudes and values needed to
compete successfully in the world of work.
The Bible repeatedly calls us to be concerned and to offer help
to the poor. That much is clear. Exactly how to translate our
concern and offers of help into concrete, practical acts is less
clear. And when it comes to the public policies of government,
what ought they to do and not do? How ought we as Christian
citizens apply the biblical principles discussed earlier in this
book to the problem of poverty?These are the questions this

Read Kraft & Furlong Chapters 9Chapter 9 Welfare and Social .docx

Read Kraft & Furlong Chapters 9Chapter 9 Welfare and Social .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Read Kraft & Furlong Chapters 9Chapter 9 Welfare and Social .docx

Similar to Read Kraft & Furlong Chapters 9Chapter 9 Welfare and Social .docx (8)

More from Abhinav816839

More from Abhinav816839 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Read Kraft & Furlong Chapters 9Chapter 9 Welfare and Social .docx